Legal Opinion

Maxim Mfg. Co. v. Imperial Mach. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided January 2, 1923No. 3134PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PAGE, Circuit Judge.

In a suit by plaintiffs appellees, herein called plaintiffs, the court held that claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of patent No. 809,582, and claim 1 of patent No. 942,932, were valid and infringed by defendant appellant, herein called defendant.1

*80The defenses are noninfringement, equitable estoppel, laches, and invalidity. Eighty-seven patents are urged as representing anticipation in the prior art. Defendant also sets up a counterclaim, alleging unfair competition. The witnesses were before the court, and several potato-peeling tests, on behalf of defendant, were made in the presence…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. American Machinery Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1921
  2. United States v. United States Brokerage & Trading Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1919
  3. American Fruit Machinery Co. v. Robinson Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
  4. Imperial Mach. Co. v. ReesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1919
  5. Imperial Machine Co. v. JacobusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1914

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dangler v. Imperial MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926
  2. Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API